This article is a good example of why people from outside an ideology should not attempt to define motivations unless joking or trying to start an argument.
I bet the guy who said it's left-biased is a right-wing wacko. As a left-wing lunatic. I see it as right-biased. Does that mean it's in the center? Possibly. But not in the sense that it captures both sides... more in the sense that it captures neither.
Overall I think dissecting the pieces and polarizing the two sides of the spectrum leads to a loss of actual philosophy and variation within the groups.
The writer favors universalism in this sense, so I detect a conservative bias.
By his definitions I would be right-wing half the time. I refuse to accept that blasphemy. Even when I agree with the cons on something it is for a liberal reason. This lame description does not capture that in the least.